1. Film: A Patent for a Pig: The Big Business of Genetics Director: N/A Release Year: N/A
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the documentary is Monsanto's quest to patent specific pig genes that they have decoded. This gene is responsible for rapid growth of pigs and if patented, pig breeding would be completely controlled by this company. Many people believe that this is just another scheme put into place by the biotechnology company to secure their monopoly over the food industry “from feed, to field, to fork”. The film also highlights the influence of genetically modified organisms (including crops) and their effects on animal breeding and farmers.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? The argument is sustained by interviewing farmers, former Monsanto employees, and environmental activists. Farmers admit their fear that Monsanto will have control of their pigs and that they will be required to pay fees to the company each time a pig with this specific gene is born on their farm. One farmer spoke about how he agreed to feed his cows genetically modified corn, complying with the company's requests. However, he lost about one million dollars and eventually his farm when the animals suspiciously became infertile after consuming this feed, which added some emotional appeal to the film. Scientific information is also provided throughout the documentary which was necessary to sustain the main argument. Pigs from various farms visited in the film were genetically tested to determine whether the owner should be worried about Monsanto. Genetically modified crops were also discussed, as a scientist commented on the fact that a crop developed by Monsanto had produced new protein patterns of which the effects on consumers were unknown, but was still fed to animals. The film also commented that Monsanto had rigged their research on the bovine growth hormone used to boost milk production in cows which had actually caused udder infections and certain residues in the milk of these cows.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? The film focuses on political, legal, economic, and ecological sustainability problems. It was apparent that Monsanto employees had landed political jobs just about the time when the issues of genetic engineering was being discussed by the government. Not surprisingly, the government had come to an agreement that is was okay to use GMOs, after which Monsanto employees landed jobs back at their old company. Legally, this film is centered on the question of whether this patent will be granted to Monsanto. Economically, many farmers lost money in general due to Monsanto's GMOs because of lower crop yield, and probably causing the sterility problem in their animals. Money and profit is obviously Monsanto's main focus, as they are clearly trying to monopolize the food industry. Ecologically, the film also proposes the question; should the patent of life forms even be allowed at all? This puts animal rights into perspective, because we are not only mass producing these animals in order to consume them, but we are now totally objectifying them on a whole new level by talking about patenting them.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The most compelling parts of the film was when the scientific evidence against Monsanto was presented such as the direct and obvious correlation between the GMO feed and sterility of animals. Without these scientific facts, it would be easy to point fingers at Monsanto and call them greedy. However, seeing the direct impact of their actions on animals and farmers convinced me that they are only concerned with making profits, which is taken to the extreme with the company's hope to patent pigs.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The part of the film that was not compelling was the explanation of what exactly this patent would allow Monsanto to do. The farmers mentioned that they would have to pay fees to the company if a pig was born with this particular gene, but the film did not go further into details about the specific parameters of the patent.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? The film best addresses an audience older than high school aged individuals because it may be slightly difficult to organize these ecological, economical, political, and scientific ideas into one coherent and understandable argument for someone younger than this.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? In order to enhance its environmental education value, the film could have included more scientific details about this pig gene and the possible effects of interbreeding only pigs with this gene could have on the environment and on the humans that consume their meat.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. It seemed that the film did not really suggest corrective action. The animal farmers were encouraged to test the DNA of their pigs, but mainly just to anticipate whether their animals could be desirable to Monsanto. They did not go into detail about what the farmers should do if their pigs tested positive for the gene. I imagine that these farmers could join together and stand up to Monsanto in court to try to prevent the patent grant.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references. I was compelled to find out whether or not the patent was granted, as the request was made in 2005. I was surprised to find that Monsanto (sold to Newsham Genetics LB in 2007), is actually no longer in the swine breeding business. The company also claims on its website that it never tried to patent the pig gene itself but rather the specific gene marker for the pig trait. It would cover a screening method to identify a specific polymorphism, or mutation is a gene which would be useful for selecting animals for stockbreeding. The documentary failed to mention the company's efforts to enhance breeding, maybe because it would have weakened its main argument about Monsanto being a greedy, monopolizing company.
Film Annotation #8
1. Film: A Patent for a Pig: The Big Business of Genetics
Director: N/A
Release Year: N/A
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the documentary is Monsanto's quest to patent specific pig genes that they have decoded. This gene is responsible for rapid growth of pigs and if patented, pig breeding would be completely controlled by this company. Many people believe that this is just another scheme put into place by the biotechnology company to secure their monopoly over the food industry “from feed, to field, to fork”. The film also highlights the influence of genetically modified organisms (including crops) and their effects on animal breeding and farmers.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is sustained by interviewing farmers, former Monsanto employees, and environmental activists. Farmers admit their fear that Monsanto will have control of their pigs and that they will be required to pay fees to the company each time a pig with this specific gene is born on their farm. One farmer spoke about how he agreed to feed his cows genetically modified corn, complying with the company's requests. However, he lost about one million dollars and eventually his farm when the animals suspiciously became infertile after consuming this feed, which added some emotional appeal to the film. Scientific information is also provided throughout the documentary which was necessary to sustain the main argument. Pigs from various farms visited in the film were genetically tested to determine whether the owner should be worried about Monsanto. Genetically modified crops were also discussed, as a scientist commented on the fact that a crop developed by Monsanto had produced new protein patterns of which the effects on consumers were unknown, but was still fed to animals. The film also commented that Monsanto had rigged their research on the bovine growth hormone used to boost milk production in cows which had actually caused udder infections and certain residues in the milk of these cows.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film focuses on political, legal, economic, and ecological sustainability problems. It was apparent that Monsanto employees had landed political jobs just about the time when the issues of genetic engineering was being discussed by the government. Not surprisingly, the government had come to an agreement that is was okay to use GMOs, after which Monsanto employees landed jobs back at their old company. Legally, this film is centered on the question of whether this patent will be granted to Monsanto. Economically, many farmers lost money in general due to Monsanto's GMOs because of lower crop yield, and probably causing the sterility problem in their animals. Money and profit is obviously Monsanto's main focus, as they are clearly trying to monopolize the food industry. Ecologically, the film also proposes the question; should the patent of life forms even be allowed at all? This puts animal rights into perspective, because we are not only mass producing these animals in order to consume them, but we are now totally objectifying them on a whole new level by talking about patenting them.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling parts of the film was when the scientific evidence against Monsanto was presented such as the direct and obvious correlation between the GMO feed and sterility of animals. Without these scientific facts, it would be easy to point fingers at Monsanto and call them greedy. However, seeing the direct impact of their actions on animals and farmers convinced me that they are only concerned with making profits, which is taken to the extreme with the company's hope to patent pigs.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part of the film that was not compelling was the explanation of what exactly this patent would allow Monsanto to do. The farmers mentioned that they would have to pay fees to the company if a pig was born with this particular gene, but the film did not go further into details about the specific parameters of the patent.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses an audience older than high school aged individuals because it may be slightly difficult to organize these ecological, economical, political, and scientific ideas into one coherent and understandable argument for someone younger than this.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
In order to enhance its environmental education value, the film could have included more scientific details about this pig gene and the possible effects of interbreeding only pigs with this gene could have on the environment and on the humans that consume their meat.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
It seemed that the film did not really suggest corrective action. The animal farmers were encouraged to test the DNA of their pigs, but mainly just to anticipate whether their animals could be desirable to Monsanto. They did not go into detail about what the farmers should do if their pigs tested positive for the gene. I imagine that these farmers could join together and stand up to Monsanto in court to try to prevent the patent grant.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.
I was compelled to find out whether or not the patent was granted, as the request was made in 2005. I was surprised to find that Monsanto (sold to Newsham Genetics LB in 2007), is actually no longer in the swine breeding business. The company also claims on its website that it never tried to patent the pig gene itself but rather the specific gene marker for the pig trait. It would cover a screening method to identify a specific polymorphism, or mutation is a gene which would be useful for selecting animals for stockbreeding. The documentary failed to mention the company's efforts to enhance breeding, maybe because it would have weakened its main argument about Monsanto being a greedy, monopolizing company.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/pig-patent.aspx
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n6/full/nbt0609-496b.html